memory_wm_clear

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that clearing a non-existent scope returns 'already empty' rather than an error, which is a key behavioral nuance. While it does not elaborate on side effects or permissions, this is sufficient for a simple clear operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently includes the critical edge case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and a clear action, the description covers the primary behavior and a notable edge case. It is slightly lacking in defining 'scope' and specifying the success return value, but these are minor given the tool's minimal complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain what 'scope' refers to or what valid values it accepts. The agent is left without guidance on this essential parameter, and the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb '清空' (clear) and a specific resource 'scope 的工作记忆' (working memory of a scope), explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools like memory_wm_read and memory_wm_write. The edge case about returning 'already empty' further clarifies its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context that this tool operates on a scope's working memory, which makes its usage obvious given the sibling set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is unambiguous and no conflicting tools exist in the visible sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.